Retrieve current storage configuration for AI prompts, including active provider, path, and last sync time. Use to verify or troubleshoot storage settings.
Retorna a configuração atual do storage (provider ativo, caminho, última sincronização).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload contents (provider, path, last sync), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the call is safe/read-only, whether auth or elevated permissions are required, or whether the 'last synchronization' field may be null when never synced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the return fields in parentheses. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place return values can be described, and it does list them. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any note on freshness, caching, or error behavior when storage is unconfigured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema, and it does not waste words inventing parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retorna a configuração atual do storage') and enumerates the returned fields (active provider, path, last sync). It is clearly distinguishable from configure_storage by the read-only framing, though it never names its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'configuração atual' signals a read of current state as opposed to configure_storage's mutation. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of list_storage_providers as the alternative for enumerating providers, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.